What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4475580?

The tribunal order states: Vira Trustee Limited As Trustee For Rami Holding Trust must pay Thanet

How much money was awarded in case 4475580?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Tenant: Breach of Tenancy Agreement…: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4475580?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4475580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9250851-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4475580?

The tribunal order states: Vira Trustee Limited As Trustee For Rami Holding Trust must pay Thanet

How much money was awarded in case 4475580?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Tenant: Breach of Tenancy Agreement…: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4475580?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4475580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9250851-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 308 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4475580 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4475580 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Tenant: Breach of Tenancy Agreement - Occupants	$250.00		Tenant: Breach of Tenancy Agreement - Occupants
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond and Unlawful		$750.00	Failure to lodge bond and Unlawful
Total award	$250.00	$750.00
Net award		$500.00
Bond		$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$500.00

Order

Vira Trustee Limited As Trustee For Rami Holding Trust must pay Thanet Singharoenchai $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (6472854-004) to Thanet Singharoenchai immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The first hearing day was in person and was then adjourned to allow further evidence to be heard. The second hearing day was via teleconference. Background
This tenancy has been a difficult one for both parties which at times has resulted in unhelpful and heated exchanges. The parties filed copies of countless emails and text messages confirming the state of the landlord-tenant relationship. There is also clear evidence of poor behaviour from both parties which certainly has not helped matters. Unhelpful comments were also exchanged during both hearing days.
The tenant filed this application on 7 January 2023 and has claimed a significant number of breaches by the landlord. The vast majority of these either not supported by evidence or are frivolous in nature.
The landlord filed a cross application on 9 January 2023.
The tenancy consisted of a two-level house with the landlord and tenant residing in the same premises.
The tenancy began on 24 May 2021. At the start of the tenancy there were two tenants listed on the tenancy agreement. The relationship between the two tenants eventually collapsed resulting in the landlord offering a new agreement with this tenant alone. The new Agreement was signed buy both parties on 21 December 2021.
The landlord has recently advised the registry that the tenant has now vacated the premises. Tenant application
The tenant has made a significant number of claims against the landlord. These claims are as follows: a. Landlord failing to ensure tenancy agreement includes certain information b. Failing to appoint agent if landlord out of New Zealand c. Landlord requiring rent increase in excess of market rent d. Interference with privacy e. Interference with supply of services f. Failing to include insurance details with tenancy agreement g. Retaliatory notice h. Attempting to terminate tenancy unlawfully i. Failing to lodge bond j. Other miscellaneous claims
Thanet Singharoenchai claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The tenant says that both of his bonds from the first tenancy agreement and second were not lodged and were only lodged once he made the landlord aware of it in December 2022.
The landlord stated that he is not a professional landlord and was genuinely unaware that he was required to lodge bond money with the bond centre. The landlord accepted this during the first hearing.
In his written statement the landlord says that the tenant was fully aware that that he had kept the bond and never objected to it. He further stated that the tenant was never disadvantaged.
I do not agree with this. Bond money is tenant money, and the statutory requirements are very clear in respect of this. The landlord offered to use the bond money to pay for an extra heat pump in the living area. There was also an attempt by the landlord to withhold this bond money as payment for damage to a fence. My view is that if a landlord decides against using a professional property manager, then the onus rests with them to ensure they fully understand their legal obligations. The requirement in respect of bond money is widely understood and there is detailed information available via Tenancy Services.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant further claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 60AA.
The second agreement was a fixed term agreement ending on 16 January 2023. On 23 December 2022 the landlord emailed the tenant stating that the tenancy would end on 16 January 2023. The notice was not in the required format and did not contain information as required under the Residential Tenancies Act.
The wording of the landlord’s email was demanding to say the least, and left the tenant in no doubt that he would have to vacate the property “as per the legal document that you have signed”. The landlord further stated that “I will expect the property handed back to me on the morning of January 17. There is no extension of this fixed term tenancy”.
This was a clear breach of the landlord’s obligations.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord in this regard has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant further claims that the landlord failed to include insurance details in the tenancy agreement. The landlord acknowledged in the agreement that there was insurance covering the property. Failing to record details of the insurance company and excess in my view is an omission which did not disadvantage the tenant. This claim is dismissed.
The remaining claims by the tenant are also dismissed as these claims are not supported by the evidence filed. The landlord’s claims
The landlord’s cross application dated 9 January 2023 claims the following: a. That the tenant did not obtain the landlord’s consent prior to having people stay in the flat b. That the tenant and his friends have been smoking and vaping on the premises. I dismiss this claim as there is no evidence filed in support. c. That the tenant has a pet on the premises. I dismiss this claim as there is no evidence supporting this.
Vira Trustee Limited As Trustee For Rami Holding Trust claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord says that the tenant had a friend staying at the flat for several weeks. The tenant acknowledged that he had a friend staying for a short period.
The tenancy agreement specifies that a maximum number of 2 people may live in the premises during the tenancy. The tenant must notify and receive approval from the landlord prior to a second tenant moving in.
Having considered the material before me I am satisfied that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement in respect of this. This is also supported by the fact that the tenant’s friend had mail arriving at the address.
I find this claim proven.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
The remaining claims by the landlord are dismissed on the grounds that the claims are not supported by the evidence filed with his cross application.
I have also had regard to the claim in respect of the fence. I am satisfied that the tenant has taken all reasonable steps to repair the fence as evidenced by the documentation filed.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for further compensation in respect of the fence is dismissed.
Because neither party has been wholly or substantially successful, I have not ordered reimbursement of their filing fees.
For the same reason, I am not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to order name suppression.
Given that the landlord and tenant have been partially successful in their applications, there is a presumption that name suppression will be granted on the basis of section 95A(1). However, the Tribunal retains a discretion to decline name suppression to a successful party if “the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case”.
I consider that publication of the landlord and tenant names in this case is both in the public interest, and also justified because of their conduct.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4475580 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Tenant: Breach of Tenancy Agreement - Occupants	$250.00		Tenant: Breach of Tenancy Agreement - Occupants
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond and Unlawful		$750.00	Failure to lodge bond and Unlawful
Total award	$250.00	$750.00
Net award		$500.00
Bond		$2,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$500.00

Order

Vira Trustee Limited As Trustee For Rami Holding Trust must pay Thanet Singharoenchai $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (6472854-004) to Thanet Singharoenchai immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The first hearing day was in person and was then adjourned to allow further evidence to be heard. The second hearing day was via teleconference. Background
This tenancy has been a difficult one for both parties which at times has resulted in unhelpful and heated exchanges. The parties filed copies of countless emails and text messages confirming the state of the landlord-tenant relationship. There is also clear evidence of poor behaviour from both parties which certainly has not helped matters. Unhelpful comments were also exchanged during both hearing days.
The tenant filed this application on 7 January 2023 and has claimed a significant number of breaches by the landlord. The vast majority of these either not supported by evidence or are frivolous in nature.
The landlord filed a cross application on 9 January 2023.
The tenancy consisted of a two-level house with the landlord and tenant residing in the same premises.
The tenancy began on 24 May 2021. At the start of the tenancy there were two tenants listed on the tenancy agreement. The relationship between the two tenants eventually collapsed resulting in the landlord offering a new agreement with this tenant alone. The new Agreement was signed buy both parties on 21 December 2021.
The landlord has recently advised the registry that the tenant has now vacated the premises. Tenant application
The tenant has made a significant number of claims against the landlord. These claims are as follows: a. Landlord failing to ensure tenancy agreement includes certain information b. Failing to appoint agent if landlord out of New Zealand c. Landlord requiring rent increase in excess of market rent d. Interference with privacy e. Interference with supply of services f. Failing to include insurance details with tenancy agreement g. Retaliatory notice h. Attempting to terminate tenancy unlawfully i. Failing to lodge bond j. Other miscellaneous claims
Thanet Singharoenchai claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
The tenant says that both of his bonds from the first tenancy agreement and second were not lodged and were only lodged once he made the landlord aware of it in December 2022.
The landlord stated that he is not a professional landlord and was genuinely unaware that he was required to lodge bond money with the bond centre. The landlord accepted this during the first hearing.
In his written statement the landlord says that the tenant was fully aware that that he had kept the bond and never objected to it. He further stated that the tenant was never disadvantaged.
I do not agree with this. Bond money is tenant money, and the statutory requirements are very clear in respect of this. The landlord offered to use the bond money to pay for an extra heat pump in the living area. There was also an attempt by the landlord to withhold this bond money as payment for damage to a fence. My view is that if a landlord decides against using a professional property manager, then the onus rests with them to ensure they fully understand their legal obligations. The requirement in respect of bond money is widely understood and there is detailed information available via Tenancy Services.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant further claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under section 60AA.
The second agreement was a fixed term agreement ending on 16 January 2023. On 23 December 2022 the landlord emailed the tenant stating that the tenancy would end on 16 January 2023. The notice was not in the required format and did not contain information as required under the Residential Tenancies Act.
The wording of the landlord’s email was demanding to say the least, and left the tenant in no doubt that he would have to vacate the property “as per the legal document that you have signed”. The landlord further stated that “I will expect the property handed back to me on the morning of January 17. There is no extension of this fixed term tenancy”.
This was a clear breach of the landlord’s obligations.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find the landlord in this regard has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant further claims that the landlord failed to include insurance details in the tenancy agreement. The landlord acknowledged in the agreement that there was insurance covering the property. Failing to record details of the insurance company and excess in my view is an omission which did not disadvantage the tenant. This claim is dismissed.
The remaining claims by the tenant are also dismissed as these claims are not supported by the evidence filed. The landlord’s claims
The landlord’s cross application dated 9 January 2023 claims the following: a. That the tenant did not obtain the landlord’s consent prior to having people stay in the flat b. That the tenant and his friends have been smoking and vaping on the premises. I dismiss this claim as there is no evidence filed in support. c. That the tenant has a pet on the premises. I dismiss this claim as there is no evidence supporting this.
Vira Trustee Limited As Trustee For Rami Holding Trust claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord says that the tenant had a friend staying at the flat for several weeks. The tenant acknowledged that he had a friend staying for a short period.
The tenancy agreement specifies that a maximum number of 2 people may live in the premises during the tenancy. The tenant must notify and receive approval from the landlord prior to a second tenant moving in.
Having considered the material before me I am satisfied that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement in respect of this. This is also supported by the fact that the tenant’s friend had mail arriving at the address.
I find this claim proven.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
The remaining claims by the landlord are dismissed on the grounds that the claims are not supported by the evidence filed with his cross application.
I have also had regard to the claim in respect of the fence. I am satisfied that the tenant has taken all reasonable steps to repair the fence as evidenced by the documentation filed.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for further compensation in respect of the fence is dismissed.
Because neither party has been wholly or substantially successful, I have not ordered reimbursement of their filing fees.
For the same reason, I am not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to order name suppression.
Given that the landlord and tenant have been partially successful in their applications, there is a presumption that name suppression will be granted on the basis of section 95A(1). However, the Tribunal retains a discretion to decline name suppression to a successful party if “the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case”.
I consider that publication of the landlord and tenant names in this case is both in the public interest, and also justified because of their conduct.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4475580 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 308 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4475580 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 308 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions